If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That health care bill

A new report Tuesday claiming budget analysts understated the cost of the law by up to $50 billion a year

Is this a surprise to anyone?

Specifically, the party is looking at a new proposal aimed at preventing workers from losing their current health plans.
"The president claimed that under ObamaCare if you liked your health care you could keep it, but his new law included a regulation that will actually prevent that from happening," Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said. "We plan to take up legislation this fall to eliminate this harmful regulation to ensure that if people like their health care, they actually are able to keep it."

repeal of the so-called CLASS Act, which establishes a new long-term care insurance program.

So far, the GOP was able to notch one modest success -- with the help of President Obama -- by passing a repeal in April of the widely unpopular provision requiring businesses to report purchases of $600 or more. Because Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, Republicans would likely have to once again summon some bipartisan support to replicate that success.

Thankful for that as I am an independent contractor!

Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research reportedly found that Washington did not factor in the cost of insuring employees' families when designing the law -- in turn creating a scenario where subsidies could be denied because individuals would not be able to meet the minimum out-of-pocket requirements because they can't count family coverage toward that amount.

But according to the Daily Caller, the researchers found employees could intentionally seek costlier insurance plans in order to pay more out of pocket and in turn qualify for subsidies.

"Clearly the result is lots more money being spent," said John Fund, a senior editor at The American Spectator.

That's so convoluted ... no wonder they needed 2,000 pages! Bottom line, it sounds like those people who are insured now would end up paying more out-of-pocket, one way or the other.

Why/how could anyone believe we could just conjure up health care for 30 million more people without somebody paying for it? If those who don't have health care couldn't afford it to begin with, who was going to pay for it? Duh? That's as stupid as sending foreign aid to China! (could have used that $ to help out with Medicaid!)

The White House, though, disputed the story. Spokesman Nick Papas said in a statement that the story was "not accurate" and that the law "will extend coverage to millions of Americans and bring down the cost of health care for all of us."

If they keep repeating the same unsupported statements, maybe they think that will make it so? I believe that rationalization is all about simply blocking out the facts that don't fit into with what one wants to believe?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.